I could not disagree more. There is clear and generally accepted evidence that human activity is the prime factor in global warming. The only "Scientists" that are denying this are in the pay of big industry or have some other agenda. Remember when Big Tobacco said that smoking was actually good for you? Just because Bushies and Rush Limbaugh say that there is disagreement does not make it so, there are "Scientists" who say that the world is flat but no rational person believes it.

I'm going to have to disagree with you there Papa.....

Yes, the Earth is in a warming trend right now. Yes, humanity is making a lot of the greenhouse gasses that do trap and hold heat. BUT if you are relying on Al Gore (Mr I Invented the Internet) as your "scientists" proving this you are following someone with a political agends too. You have to remember that the Earth has been around for a very long time and has gone through a number of warming and cooling trends during that time.

If there was real actual proof from real scientists either way then there would definately be a bit more goin on about it. Right now you have "scientists" on both sides publishing their theories and we all know that theories are not facts until they are proven. Nothing has been proven either way yet._________________Fetch me the Holy Hand Grenade!

Keeper of the Unending keg of PGGBs
Taunter in Training
Campaign Manager for Sir Shrubbery

As for the only scientists disagreeing with global warming, read the link I posted before. That site isn't hype, there's very little from the author of the site, it's mostly news from other sources debunking the main stream news with information, quotes, and articles posted by... scientists! Who knew.

As for light bulbs not making a difference, you're dead wrong there. It's been estimated that if every household in American changed ONE LIGHT (assuming it's incandescent) to compact florescent, we could shut down 8 power plants. Beyond the direct electrical impact of producing 90 watts of light from 14 watts of electricity, there is also the heat output (which is where that wattage is going in an incandescent light). Most homes have central air, or some form of active cooling, that is having to deal with a significant amount of waste heat produced by incandescent lights. It won't be too long before compact fluorescents are replaced by LED lights, which are already available but expensive (as was the case with compact fluorescents 20 years ago). Not a free fix, as mentioned re: toxicity of the materials, but it's a hell of a smaller problem than the excess electricity being used for no reason right now.

Edit: Totally forgot about cars. First, your assumption of 1 liter per cylinder is grossly over the average engine size. An 8 cylinder engine displacing 8 liters of air, or any number of cylinders displacing a total of 8 liters, would only be found in heavy machinery or big rigs. Technically you're getting more output volume than the engine intakes anyways because it's heating it up by a very large margin (exhaust temps are often near or over 1,000 degrees F when they exit the engine, but cool greatly before leaving the exhaust pipe).

Secondly, it's not like it's spewing pure poison. There is oxygen in there as well that's still oxygen on it's way out (which is part of the problem actually, incomplete combustion), along with water vapor. Saying that 100% of the air it intakes comes out as pollution isn't true, either way. Don't get me wrong, huffing on it is going to kill you off sooner rather than later, that's why you shouldn't do that hehe.

That aside, the biggest generator of carbon dioxide is from the generation of electricity (42%). Transportation, in all it's forms (this is including big trucks, train, etc) is only 24% of the total. That's why I say the light bulbs will help more than messing with cars. We don't HAVE a solution for pollution free internal combustion engines, which means you've still got hundreds of millions of vehicles to address. The solutions we DO have are not fool proof, are very expensive, and/or create more pollution than they remove (remember, electricity generation already pollutes more than cars do, and everyone wants to go to ELECTRIC cars that will require an exponential growth in our power generation industry).

Insult to injury, the part that really bugs me, is there are already technologies in use that could be made more universal to have an impact, even if a small one. Look up Coates Spherical Rotating Valves as an example. Lighter, cheaper, more efficient, and offering better performance (which means cleaner exhaust, because of a more complete combustion of materials). And ignored by everyone but the heavy truck and power generation (gas generators mostly) industry. They're working on retrofit kits for existing cars, and that'll be the 2nd thing I do to help the environment hehe. 11% increase in gas mileage with an 80% increase in power generation (horsepower). And, unlike the pipe dreams like a 200 mpg car that runs on water, CSRV are real, tested, and in use right now... just not in our cars. Makes me want to cry, really. I need more horsepower... oh, yeah... and 11% better gas mileage would be OK I guess._________________
Stats: [BOINC Synergy] - [Free-DC] - [MundayWeb] - [Netsoft] - [All Project Stats]

If there was real actual proof from real scientists either way then there would definately be a bit more goin on about it. Right now you have "scientists" on both sides publishing their theories and we all know that theories are not facts until they are proven. Nothing has been proven either way yet.

Now just to split hairs, we are talking about Science here right, and in science everything is a theory. We still say the Theory of General Relativity even though we accept it as fact. It could be argued that there is NOTHING in science that is FACT. Anyway the only real way to prove that the train is coming down the track you are standing on is to wait until you get hit by it._________________a.k.a. Licentious of Borg.........Resistance Really is Futile.......
and a Really Hoopy Frood who always knows where his Towel is...

I could not disagree more. There is clear and generally accepted evidence that human activity is the prime factor in global warming.

The only thing I will say about this is that it is not a LAW yet. We call it the Law of Gravity because it is proven. Things are a theory in the world of science until it cn be proven or disproven. If proven it becomes a law. When it is called the Law of Global Warming I will agree with you, until then it IS a theory.

JerWA wrote:

As for light bulbs not making a difference, you're dead wrong there.

While I will not disagree that replacing a single light bulb in EVERY home in America would have less draw on electrical useage, I will disagree that it would have a significant impact. Ok lets say you can shut down eight power plants...what did you accomplish? There are 2776 power plants in America ((source: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/ipp/html1/ippv1te1p1.html)). So you eliminated 0.0028%...just bearly 1/4 of 100th of a percent. So when I say that it will not make a difference, i am right (in my opinion). The only reason I focused on cars is because they are 20% of the pollution. If you had laws that forced auto makers to make 30 MPG or better vehicles, then you would cut that 20% to probably 7-11% or so. That is much much better than 0.0028%.

JerWA wrote:

Edit: Totally forgot about cars. First, your assumption of 1 liter per cylinder is grossly over the average engine size... Secondly, it's not like it's spewing pure poison. There is oxygen in there as well that's still oxygen on it's way...

Ok so lets say it is 1/2 a liter of air, that is still 420,000 liters of air that is polluted. I did not say that the air is unuseable after being polluted. As you said alot of it is still Oxygen, however you do not want to breath it for long periods. And after all, isnt this whole conversation on how to reduce pollution. So lets assume that 1/2 of that 420,000 liters of air is polluted, you are still talking about 210,000 liters of polluted, unuseable air...that is still not acceptable (i think).

JerWA wrote:

That aside, the biggest generator of carbon dioxide is from the generation of electricity (42%).

Ok agreed (which I agreed to in my earlier post also), however why does the generation of electrical power generate so much pollution? Two major reasons: 1) The environmentalist will not allow the US to build more Nuclear Power plants (they are proven to be much cleaner that Coal or Gas fired plants). 2) The environmentalist will not allow the US to build more dams to generate Hydro power (the cleanest form of power third only to wind and solar). Eliminate the environmentalist and we can probably eliminate all Gas and Coal fired power plants and replace them with much cleaner Nuclear and Hydro plants._________________
KWSNImNotDead - "I don't want to go on the cart!". It is spelled LooNies.

While I will not disagree that replacing a single light bulb in EVERY home in America would have less draw on electrical useage, I will disagree that it would have a significant impact. Ok lets say you can shut down eight power plants...what did you accomplish? There are 2776 power plants in America ((source: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/ipp/html1/ippv1te1p1.html)). So you eliminated 0.0028%...just bearly 1/4 of 100th of a percent. So when I say that it will not make a difference, i am right (in my opinion). The only reason I focused on cars is because they are 20% of the pollution. If you had laws that forced auto makers to make 30 MPG or better vehicles, then you would cut that 20% to probably 7-11% or so. That is much much better than 0.0028%.

My point being that that change is from 1 light bulb, an existing technology that is affordable and proven effective, in every home. Given that the average household has more than one, there is obviously a bigger result that can be gained. I also guess the site I got that from was wrong or out of date, because I found a better one for you. If every household changed 1 bulb, it would have the same impact as removing a million cars from the road.[1] Not huge, no, but again it's available now, easy to implement, and like most things, can result in a much greater impact if more widely adopted. LED lights, the next step, will have even more of an impact because they use even less electricity that fluorescents and don't have an igniter (the first point of failure in florescent lights) which allows them to last even longer usually.

As for gas mileage, you're wrong. It's not as if companies are going "Hmm, we COULD make this car have 40 MPG, but nah..." That means "forcing" them to hit 30 mpg for every vehicle would require re-engineering every vehicle. It would require expensive technologies, expensive materials to reduce weight, and a reduction in creature comforts to further reduce weight. Why aren't they doing this? Because they're in the business of selling you what you want. How many people do you predict will line up for these magic 30 mpg vehicles that cost as much as Corvettes but lack style, comfort, etc? It costs almost $100m for a major automaker to re-tool an existing factory to make a new car (truly new, not just a remake of an existing car). Mandating that every car be changed would immediately put GM and Ford out of business, they're both already teetering on the edge as it is. Either way, the biggest problem with changing mileage NOW is that it has ZERO impact on the cars already produced. You're right back to square 1. Even if every car from this day forward managed 100 mpg, what are you going to do about the hundreds of millions of cars out there right now? You like percentages, figure out how big of a change a 10% reduction in emissions in NEW CARS will result in compared to the 221 million there were already on the road in the year 2000[2] just in the USA (and not counting large trucks) that won't lower emissions at all? And you think shutting down 8 (a 100% reduction) of 2,776 is a small percent?

The whole point of my lightbulb argument is that is improves an existing condition, is readily available and affordable, and impacts the largest source of this particular issue (which may or may not even be a problem).

KWSN Im Not Dead wrote:

Ok so lets say it is 1/2 a liter of air, that is still 420,000 liters of air that is polluted.<snip>

Either way, the generation of electricity is producing twice as much. As bad as cars may be (don't forget you're talking about the transportation industry too, anything using an internal combustion engine really), the generation of electricity is still producing twice the emissions. It's also more concentrated, because it's fewer sources. What do you imagine will be easier to fix? 221 million cars or 2776 electric plants?

KWSN Im Not Dead wrote:

Ok agreed (which I agreed to in my earlier post also), however why does the generation of electrical power generate so much pollution? Two major reasons: 1) The environmentalist will not allow the US to build more Nuclear Power plants (they are proven to be much cleaner that Coal or Gas fired plants). 2) The environmentalist will not allow the US to build more dams to generate Hydro power (the cleanest form of power third only to wind and solar). Eliminate the environmentalist and we can probably eliminate all Gas and Coal fired power plants and replace them with much cleaner Nuclear and Hydro plants.

Actually nuclear power generation isn't that clean, nor is it all that efficient still in terms of real-world impact from pollution. There have been improvements made, but they are fairly slow in coming because it's not a well funded area of research. There is very little air pollution, yes, but what you're left with is fatally toxic for thousands (or tens of thousands) of years. They are working on processes to cycle the waste material back through to continue generating electricity, which would increase the over all efficiency while reducing the waste output. Don't get me wrong, nuclear power is one of the most efficient means of generating electricity, it's just the most expensive initially to setup and that makes companies shy away from it (the enviro-nuts aside). Not to mention that nuclear plants have the ability to go really really wrong, on a level that can impact the entire world from a single failure.

what are you going to do about the hundreds of millions of cars out there right now

I agree with you there, the new trucks mandated by the U.S. gov have new engines that cost 10k more, use ultra low sulfur diesel fuel (that costs more), get less mileage, cost more to maintain, and have a unknown lifespan. Used rebuilt engines have gone up in price by 3 to 5 Thousand dollars in the last 4 months. The truck that I was going to buy needs an engine rebuild for 12k, last week they said that now it would cost at least 17k for the engine alone plus labor to install it. A new truck costs about 135k. The ones with 2006 engines cost more if you can find them._________________a.k.a. Licentious of Borg.........Resistance Really is Futile.......
and a Really Hoopy Frood who always knows where his Towel is...

keep in mind (and i am guessing here, i can research it if needed) that the average person (not evryone, just the majority) probably gets a newer vehicle every 4-6 years. Assuming that is correct (once again I am not sure):

If the government said ok guys, want to sell cars in America? Cool, however as of 2015 you have to have 30MPG or better or it cant be sold. There would be exceptions to this: tractor-trailers, police, ambulance, fire trucks, construction equipment, etc... The focus of this act would be to reduce the pollution from automobiles that average folks drive (which is where I assume that the majority of the pollution comes from when referring to the 20% generated by cars (i do not know the source of that stat, so i donít know how much of 20% is automobiles)). Lets assume that 12 of the 20% are automobiles (i would think it would be more, but ill be on the safe side). If you require that by 2015 all automobiles are 30 MPG, and assuming that most folks will recycle their cars in a 4-6 year time frame, then by 2021 you would have reduced car pollution from 12% to roughly 7%. Add five more years and you can probably knock off 1-3% more as others recycle their cars. And that blows the pants off of 0.0028% anyway you look at it. Also I am not saying that you cant do the lightbulbs WHILE doing the automobiles, i am just saying that if you want to focus your energy into the most impact then that would be automobiles.

As for needing to retool, if you set the goal 7-8 years out as I did then they can design it into the car when they build it, thus no retooling required. Most (not all) automobile companies already offer a 30MPG engine or better, or if they donít their parent/sister company does. But as mentioned in a few posts, you the consumer would have to pay more for them and you would get less car. Goodbye SUVs (large ones anyway), goodbye large cars like the Park Ave, Town Car, Crown Vic, etc..., goodbye large trucks (except for the construction industry or other industries where a large truck would be needed), etc... We, as the average consumer, would loose. But that would be the price you pay for helping the environment.

Now having said all of that please remember that I do not really believe in this Global Warming stuff. Its not that I am ignorant or unwilling to look at the research, its just that on the one side you have very well respected scientist saying it is happening and on the other side you have very well respected scientist saying it is not happening. They have studied this FAR more than I ever can, so I have to assume they have good reasons to be on the side that they are. Until the global warming thing becomes fact/law, then I think it is just something to talk about. We can do what we can to help (light bulbs, better MPG cars, running the AC/heater less, etc...) but really that is all we can do and the impact is going to be very minor. I do use the funny shaped light bulbs in my house, not because I was helping the environment but because they lowered by power bill. I did buy a new car with 11 MPG better than my older one, not because I am wanting to help the environment but because it reduced my gas expense. In the end, if the global warming folks wants to get everyone on board with this, then they have to make it cheaper for the average consumer.

Also I would like to remind everyone of this :

remember in the 80's how the world was going to end due to Acid Rain, you would not be able to go outside when it was raining in 10 years....yet here we are 27 years later..rain is fine.

remember in the 90's how the world was going to end due to the Ozone Layer disappearing, you would have to wear SPF 1000 in 10 years and not have any exposed skin....yet here we are 17 years later, at the beach, enjoying the sun.

Global Warming is just a fad like those two were. It will go away sometime in 2010ish and be replaced with what ever the new threat of the day is.

(boy am i going to get it for those last few lines...please remember i am new and fragile)

**EDIT**

JerWA wrote:

As for gas mileage, you're wrong ... How many people do you predict will line up for these magic 30 mpg vehicles that cost as much as Corvettes but lack style, comfort, etc? ... You like percentages, figure out how big of a change a 10% reduction in emissions in NEW CARS will result in compared to the 221 million there were already on the road in the year 2000[2] just in the USA (and not counting large trucks) that won't lower emissions at all? And you think shutting down 8 (a 100% reduction) of 2,776 is a small percent?

As i said you the consumer will suffer if you want to be eco-friendly. The cars will cost more and you will get less car. As for "magic 30 MPG" cars....There are LOTS of 30MPG+ cars on the road right now. Also it will not be a 10% reduction in emissions, it will be 16-50% as most cars are in the 15-25MPG range right now (just look at the current 2007 line up of most companies on edmunds.com, most are in the 15-25MPG range). As I said above, the cars on the road today would be left alone but as people get new cars the old ones will slowly go away and the new one will be 30 MPG or better. Will some old cars still remain? Sure they will, there are people still driving cars from the 1960s every day. What I am focusing on here is the majority, not the oddball. And yes I think 8 out of 2,776 is a small percent, what is small to you if you dont think 0.0028 is small?_________________
KWSNImNotDead - "I don't want to go on the cart!". It is spelled LooNies.

Last edited by KWSN Im Not Dead on Sun Jun 03, 2007 8:36 am; edited 3 times in total

Don't forget that in the 1970s it was global cooling. For the record, I think global warming is happening, but I think all the hoopla about it being human caused is completely farcical, and the idea that we can actually do something to directly influence it like steering a boat is ludicrous. We don't even understand the forces working on the system, let alone the system itself, and we're proposing we start tampering? Yeah, why does THIS not sound like a good idea?

As for cars, I don't think that the majority of people recycle cars that quickly. Out of the cars driven by the 5 people that live here, only one is newer than the year 2000. It's also driven the least (a Prius hybrid, ironically). The other vehicles include two trucks and an SUV ('76 Ford F250 used for work, mid 90s Chevy Silverado half ton used for work, and a late 90s or early 2000 "small" SUV used for commuting), a 1989 Dodge Turbo Caravan used for commuting (with more than 220k miles on it and in desperate need of being retired), a 1989 Chevy Camaro (Even with a v8 it gets better mileage than the minivan lol) that's almost never used right now (it's my car, and until I'm working I have no reason to drive it around... translates into 2,000 miles added to the car over the last 8 months), and a late 80s Camry or something like that that's used to run errands.

That covers the last 5 years or so hehe. Anywho, during that same time my grandparents went through 2 minivans and 2 trucks (only 1 truck was new, and was for work), my uncle went through 4 trucks (none new, all but one for work), my aunt went through 2 cars (neither new), and the list continues.

My question is why you think 30 mpg would decrease emissions so noticeably. MPG doesn't imply cleanliness, just less fuel consumption. I think the number of cars on the road is increasing at a faster rate than a relatively small shift in efficiency (after all, average gas mileage for cars (not trucks) is already well over 27 mpg) could account for.[1] If the ideal is to, say... set CAFE at 30 mpg for all vehicles, the result would be economic disaster, and a whole fleet of new vehicles that nobody would buy (after all, there have been cars with 30mpg+ available for years, and the statistics show them as poor sellers). It still wouldn't address the issue of all the existing cars on the road. The only real fix would be to basically force people to turn in their cars and receive their new government provided bicycle. If I had to guess, I'd say that'd cause the 2nd civil war.

My thought on it would be that in order to achieve this number you would need to be in a 4 cylinder, not a v8 or v6. This would reduce the number of cylinder fires per RPM and thus reduce emissions. You are correct that MPG in of itself does nothing (uses less gas but thats all), its the fewer cylinders I was really focusing on and I should have been more clear on that...sorry _________________
KWSNImNotDead - "I don't want to go on the cart!". It is spelled LooNies.

My thought on it would be that in order to achieve this number you would need to be in a 4 cylinder, not a v8 or v6. This would reduce the number of cylinder fires per RPM and thus reduce emissions. You are correct that MPG in of itself does nothing (uses less gas but thats all), its the fewer cylinders I was really focusing on and I should have been more clear on that...sorry

That's not true either though. And a smaller engine is not necessarily more efficient, which is really what pollution hinges on. It's quite possible for a small 4 cylinder engine to be producing more pollution than an 8 cylinder engine twice it's displacement. An example of this is the Corvette, which qualifies as a ULEV (ultra low emissions vehicle, meaning 50% cleaner emissions than the average new car[1]), and has a highway mileage of 28 with a 400 horsepower v8 without using cylinder deactivation. The Corvette Z06 still manages 26 mpg highway, despite a 105 horsepower increase over the base Corvette. Unfortunately, examples of this are few and far between, and really don't seem to hinge on price. Look at most new Ferrari, which cost 3 to 5 times as much as the Corvette, but get 12 mpg. Ironically, the Ferrari is considered to be using vastly superior technology.

As for average car mileage, you must be talking city? Improving city mileage means driving a scooter, a hybrid, or using cylinder deactivation. Electric cars don't count, because they make the problem worse (by requiring electricity, the primary source of the pollution in the first place).

So here's prrof that diesel engines produce less greenhouse gases per mile than petrol engines... and everyone things diesels more polluting!!

I think the real problem america politicians face is making the american public understand that a car that does 35 mpg on a highway IS NOT a low polluting car... but is in fact totally the opposite....

Which is actually one of the problems with diesel engines. Those filters are not cheap, to develop or manufacture, and wear out over time much faster than say... a catalytic converter. When the filter fails, the resulting pollution is much worse than when the equivalent system fails on a gasoline engine.

The other problem with diesel is quality. Most of the world has long since gone to a low sulfur diesel, but the US only managed it in 2006. The problem? They aren't interchangeable. So, new diesels have to find fuel stations that have the low sulfur fuel, and old diesels have to find the high sulfur fuel.

And, for whatever reason, diesel fuel itself has flipped places with gasoline here to become the most expensive.

Beyond that, it's also important to note that it requires more oil (crude) to make a gallon of diesel than a gallon of gasoline, and that while some pollutants are lower from a diesel engine, others are higher.[1] And while things like biodiesel will certainly help reduce the amount of oil required to make diesel, there isn't nearly enough to actually significantly change our source I think. So while the 20% correction factor drops 60 mpg to 48, that's still pretty darned good. It's just the other expenses that aren't so great.

Unfortunately, most of this is really a moot point, because it comes down to what people will buy. In the US, we got a bunch of bad diesel cars, and public perception of diesels now is pretty bad. It will take some serious work to make the public here diesel-friendly again.

Ok, men, think this has gone too far for me. This is my last post in this thread (you are not going to get rid of me so easily ), so I'll try to explain my point of view in a little words.

1. I think climate change is a fact. Humanity HAS to study it's origin, and then try to minimize its impact on Earth.
2. A massive extinction of living organisms is taking place. I think it's related to human activity. But scientists must study it.
3. Goverments must get involved, and they should involve big pollutant companies.
4. It's a whole planet Earth problem. No country must face it alone. In fact, in my simple opinion, it could be a great chance for the world to forget the silly differences among countries (and foolish religion hate) and begin to face OUR problems TOGETHER.
5. Earth problems include Humanity's ones. Disease and famine should be erradicated. It should be worked out TOGETHER. We western citizens drive Pontiacs and BMW's, and discard food to trash. Meanwhile, in Africa, for example, people are dying every minute from malaria, AIDS, hunger....

I know I am a dreamer but I like to Imagine it (a tribute for John Lennon)

The other problem with diesel is quality. Most of the world has long since gone to a low sulfur diesel, but the US only managed it in 2006. The problem? They aren't interchangeable. So, new diesels have to find fuel stations that have the low sulfur fuel, and old diesels have to find the high sulfur fuel.

Aside from the fact that you can't find high sulfur diesel anymore, my understanding is that MY2007 and later engines require the low sulfur diesel (high sulfur will clog the emissions systems), while anything earlier can run on low or high sulfur._________________KWSN Forum Admin
Founding Member of the Migratory Coconuts

You're right johnny, the problem was only the new vehicles finding the low sulfur fuel. I don't have a diesel, so I didn't look that deeply into it before, and only remember it at all because gas stations all along our route when we moved here had it posted if they were using low sulfur or not. Chevron says the low sulfur fuel is indeed "backwards" compatible, it's just new vehicles that can't use the old fuel because, as you mentioned, the particulate filters would get butt-kicked. Thanks for the correction.

Ok, men, think this has gone too far for me. This is my last post in this thread (you are not going to get rid of me so easily ), so I'll try to explain my point of view in a little words.

If it's your last post, wouldn't it be easy to get rid of you since you're getting rid of yourself? hehe

belenus wrote:

1. I think climate change is a fact. Humanity HAS to study it's origin, and then try to minimize its impact on Earth.
2. A massive extinction of living organisms is taking place. I think it's related to human activity. But scientists must study it.
3. Goverments must get involved, and they should involve big pollutant companies.
4. It's a whole planet Earth problem. No country must face it alone. In fact, in my simple opinion, it could be a great chance for the world to forget the silly differences among countries (and foolish religion hate) and begin to face OUR problems TOGETHER.
5. Earth problems include Humanity's ones. Disease and famine should be erradicated. It should be worked out TOGETHER. We western citizens drive Pontiacs and BMW's, and discard food to trash. Meanwhile, in Africa, for example, people are dying every minute from malaria, AIDS, hunger....

1. Climate change is, indeed, fact. There are many cycles involved, including some off-planet like solar cycles, but everything changes over time. The debate, really, is cause.
2. There's little doubt that our actions cause the elimination of species. There's also little doubt that these things go in cycles too. We really should learn to play nicer with the planet though, before it kicks our butt.
3. The problem with governments is they're funded by companies.
4. I think this is less likely than all of us winning the lotto.
5. Don't forget we also host terrorist organizations masquerading as environmentalist groups, a corporate driven government, and soccer moms driving 8,000 lb Excursions to their global warming rallies.

Diesel fuel is very different in the pollution as Gas/Petrol combusts/burns, Diesel Detonates. Diesel has no carbon monoxide but is very high in nitrates.

Diesel is also used for home heating and there it is burned, so waste gasses are different.

I also believe that human activity is a major contributor to global warming but that does not mean we are the only reason. Insisting that we are the cause and only cause will mean that all the nay-sayers have to do is prove that there are other causes as well. 7+ billion humans are going to cause some changes in the environment no matter what anyone says.

The real issue in my opinion is what kind of world are we leaving to future generations?_________________a.k.a. Licentious of Borg.........Resistance Really is Futile.......
and a Really Hoopy Frood who always knows where his Towel is...

I've been hunting around for a good source for "the real story" on global warming, and I'm rather disappointed to report that I haven't found any [web sites] that don't seem to also have a serious bias towards one side or the other. Worse yet, some sites appear to ignore known facts (or maybe they are just old and outdated), and many other sites seem to be quoting each other with no reference to the original sources.

I thought it would be easy to find a convincing presentation of the case for global warming. Apparently I was wrong. At very least I haven't looked hard enough in the right places.

On the other hand, if you look hard enough for anything, you will eventually see what you want to see - a professional hazard in my occupation.

A 2006 study by Texas A&M University found that the average American walks about 900 miles per year. Another study by the American Beer Institute found that Americans drink an average of 22 gallons of beer a year.

That means, on average, Americans get approximately 41 miles per gallon. _________________a.k.a. Licentious of Borg.........Resistance Really is Futile.......
and a Really Hoopy Frood who always knows where his Towel is...